Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon as the member of Parliament for Hastings—Lennox and Addington.

In most offices on Parliament Hill, there is, perched upon a bookshelf, an unassuming little book, about an inch wide, and if a member or a staffer has been here for some time, it is likely collecting a fair amount of dust. Outside of a House leader's office, there is not too much need for this book, with its greyish-blue hard cover, inlaid in faux gold with the mace of the House of Commons. I certainly never thought I would ever have the need for it when I started my parliamentary career three years ago.

However, thanks to the government and the hard work of one of its former colleagues, it became incredibly valuable in the preparation of my remarks this afternoon. I am, of course, talking about The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers and Records: A Sourcebook on the Law and Precedent of Parliamentary Subpoena Powers for Canadian and Other Houses, a book by former Liberal MP Derek Lee. To Mr. Lee, I send my thanks.

The reason I want to bring up this authority is because it is my firm belief that Canadians need to know why opposition parties, both past and present, take such umbrage with what is currently happening in this place. Far too often, we as members can get lost in the ebb and flow of the internal machinations of the House of Commons, or perhaps take it for granted that people who are tuning in are as knowledgeable in procedure as some of us may be.

If members will indulge me, I would like to first talk about the how. One of Parliament's privileges, the power to send for persons, papers and records, is a cornerstone of the functions of every legislative responsibility and every legislative assembly. It is important to note that this power, to send for persons, papers and records, as a law of Parliament, is constitutional in nature. It is so fundamental that it has scarcely been altered over the centuries, and as a matter of law, cannot be altered except by the express will of Parliament itself.

The power of a House of Parliament to send for persons, papers and records is an essential element of a democratic legislative function founded on the rule of law. One of the cornerstone privileges of both historic and modern Parliaments and other assemblies, the term is often better understood when restated in more contemporary language. Based on principles firmly established in constitutional and parliamentary law, a House of Parliament has the full authority to summon and compel the attendance and testimony of any person and to summon and compel the production of any document.

I think this section is very straightforward. The House has the power to compel documents. This is the overarching umbrella under which we are now operating. It stands to reason that the next question would be if this authority extend to ministers, and if so, if there are limitations on what they can do. Mr. Lee writes that, under the law, ministers of the Crown enjoy no special status of privilege before the House or a committee. Any difference in treatment is either for political reasons or because the minister is a member of a House. In other words, legally speaking, a minister who is not a member of a House may be treated like any other member of the public.

He further writes that, when the House orders a return from the government without a deadline specified, it is the government's bounden duty to bring it down to the House as quickly as possible. This Canadian reference is one of those cited by Bourinot, the third clerk of the House of Commons, for his statement that, if a person neglects to furnish a return or frames it so as knowingly to mislead the House, it will be considered a breach of privilege, and he will be liable to reprimand or punishment.

When a deadline is imposed, therefore, and a minister fails to comply, he or she may be found in contempt and punished by the House or other powers used to coerce the minister to comply.

Again, it is pretty clear that, if the House asks, the government must comply.

Now we have two very important pieces to explain the how. First, Parliament has the power to compel the production of documents. Second, it is allowed to compel documentation from ministers and the government, and they must comply. From the words of the Speaker, it very much appears that the government failed to comply with the lawful order of the House, which leads us to the why.

In 2001, the government of the day established an arm's-length organization, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, for which the stated aim was to demonstrate new technologies to promote sustainable development, including technologies to address issues related to climate change and the quality of air, water and soil. There was no issue with this organization during its first governance period, and that is a fairly impressive statement.

The Jean Chrétien Liberals managed to not abuse the program. The Paul Martin Liberals managed to not line the pockets of their lackeys. The Stephen Harper Conservatives fought off the urge to swindle the taxpayers. The Liberals, enter the scene, far left, were ready to put the gift in grift. There was 400 million in taxpayer dollars stolen out of the pockets of hard-working Canadian families and funnelled into the silk-lined jackets of Liberal Party insiders. Members need not take my word for it. The non-partisan Auditor General has much to say on the matter.

The Auditor General released a scathing report with such headers as: “The Foundation awarded funding to ineligible projects”; “The foundation’s records showed that the conflict-of-interest policies were not followed in 90 cases”; “The Foundation did not report conflicts of interest to the department”; “Legal requirements for the number of the foundation’s members were not met”; and my personal favourite, “The department did not monitor conflicts of interest at the foundation”.

In the report, the Auditor General states:

...we found 90 cases where, according to the foundation’s own records, its conflict-of-interest policies were not followed:

According to the meeting minutes, the official corporate records, in 25 cases, directors participated in discussions and voted to approve funding to ultimate recipients despite having previously declared conflicts of interest. For about half these situations, directors informed us that either there was an error in the corporate records and they did not have a conflict of interest, or when they did have a conflict, they recused themselves from voting. While directors had the opportunity to correct the board’s meeting minutes prior to their approval at a subsequent meeting, such corrections were not made.

Additionally, when news started breaking out about the improprieties, the organization decided to take action. What did it decide to do? Well, I will let the Auditor General tell us:

Soon after the board received allegations about financial mismanagement and poor human resources practices at the foundation in January 2023, a special committee of the board was struck. The special committee hand-selected the same law firm to which the foundation’s external general counsel belonged to investigate and produce a report that the board received in May 2023. This could create the appearance that the investigation was not independent.

Earlier today, I rose in the House to speak about the dangers of rotten, self-serving institutions. It is clear that this is another example of a decrepit, broken organization. It clearly always has been this way, surviving over successive governments. The only difference is that the current administration was the only one out of four that looked at it and thought to itself, “Let's abuse it.” Considering that the Chrétien and Martin governments, which were run by two individuals who were heavily involved in the ad scam scandal, gave this grift a pass, I would wager to say that the current government opting to siphon funds from this particular program is bordering on profound.

We have the ability to call an election over this. It has been done before, and we do not even need to try to score bonus points by couching it under auspices of contempt of Parliament, primarily because this is an actual breach, something far worse than the contempt charge. Judging by the past rhetoric of other parties in the House, particularly in 2011, we would not think so.

When it was politically expedient, the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc members decided that they could not bear the thought of a government's using redactions in documents and decided to find it in contempt and force an election, even though that backfired cartoonishly on two of the three parties. However, today, the Liberals suddenly seem perfectly fine with it, going so far as to accuse the Conservatives of slowing down Parliament. I keep hearing about the millions of dollars a day being spent on holding the government to account, yet the Liberals are suspiciously quiet on the $400 million that was funnelled into the pockets of Liberal insiders.

Let us take a step back. I would like to go back to a better time. Food costs were less. Housing was much more affordable. Canadians could heat their homes for the winter and put gas in their cars for an upcoming trip to see nana and papa with the kids. Working Canadian families were seized with the decision of where to go on their summer vacation instead of which food bank to rotate into to put food on their tables. It was a better time. It was the tail end of the Harper minority years.

However, there was an issue brewing in the House of Commons. There was a new hockey arena to be built in Quebec. The federal government had decided that it would not support the project unless there was more private sector buy-in. There was a request for documents, and the government of the day provided redacted paperwork. This was particularly upsetting to one first-term MP, an up-and-comer from Quebec. On March 11, 2011, this young MP got up and said the following:

Mr. Speaker, North Africa is going after tyrants and fighting for democracy, but here in Canada, it is the Conservatives who are attacking our democracy. They continue to refuse to be held accountable by covering up anything that could enable Canadians to judge their actions.

The latest example we have is the document on the financing of the Quebec City arena with page after page blacked out. There are no state secrets here. They are only hiding the dangerous incompetence of this irresponsible government.

Why are the Conservatives so afraid of transparency?

To be clear, this young MP decided to compare documentation over a hockey arena to the brutal regime of Muammar Gaddafi. In his mind, this was an apt comparison, or at least something he thought worth putting on the parliamentary record. Of course, the documentation that was handed over was subject to revision and redaction by the public service at the time, under the sets of rules then instituted, which this person was not happy with.

To wit, he continued:

In order for members of the House to do our jobs and make informed decisions on behalf of Canadians, we need to pry scraps of relevant information out of the Conservatives' clenched fists and drag it out of them as they kick and scream....

Clearly, this member took the production of papers to Parliament extremely seriously.

In any event, we know how that failed NDP-Liberal-Bloc attempt to discredit the Conservative Party ended up. Their gamble with contempt of Parliament failed miserably. The Liberals got relegated to the political hinterland. The NDP saw a massive surge in Quebec, becoming the official opposition, and Stephen Harper finally got his strong, stable, national Conservative majority government.

However, what of our young first-term MP who found the concept of withholding documents so morally repulsive, so disgusting, that he likened the government of the day to a literal Libyan dictator who was, at that very moment, engaged in the brutal suppression of his people? Well, he managed to be one of the very few Liberal MPs who got re-elected. In fact, he is still a member of this place.

The member, representing a small riding on the island of Montreal, actually found great successes in the ashes of the Liberal Party. The member for Papineau is the Prime Minister, the very same member who now, 13 years later, refuses to table documents ordered by the House, not over a sporting complex but over $400 million of taxpayer money being siphoned from the pockets of hard-working Canadians and into the trust funds of Liberal insiders.

It is extremely interesting what 13 years in politics can do to how one views the role of government and how power can change and affect one's morals. In any event, it certainly is an interesting thought experiment to think what the hopeful and beaming newly minted member for Papineau would think of the Prime Minister and his government today.

Shelby Kramp-Neuman

$507,604.00